My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Verdict in: Climategate scientists broke law | Main | Hot Topic in denial »

Comments

CM

"Frank said it was hard to say how the new findings might have altered estimates in a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 that world temperatures could rise by between 1.1 and 6.4 Celsius by 2100.

"Of the models that did include the carbon cycle, our results suggests that those with slightly below average feedbacks might be more accurate," he said. "But we can't now say exactly what sort of temperature range that would imply.""

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60Q51V20100127

Not quite the exaggeration that you are claiming Ian.....how come?

CM

"Australian expert Professor Andy Pitman of the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre in Sydney says the findings are both "good news and bad news".
It is good news because it suggests amplification is at the lower end of previous estimates, says Pitman. But bad news because it confirms there is an amplification.
He says the findings will help climate scientists to pin down the contribution of amplification, which has not been previously included in IPCC scenarios of due to the surrounding uncertainties.
But Pitman says he doesn't think that degree of amplification will be enough to substantially change IPCC climate change scenarios."

"Dr Mike Raupach from CSIRO Marine & Atmospheric Research in Canberra welcomes the study.
"It's a great analysis," says Raupach, but the findings will be of "limited help" in fine-tuning IPCC scenarios.
He says Frank and colleagues studied a period of relatively stable climate, when temperatures varied by only about 0.3°C.
Raupach says the amplification processes that are likely to occur over the next 100 years, if humans continue to emit high levels of CO2, may be quite different.
"We are taking the coupled carbon climate system well outside the range that has been experienced over the last 1000 years," he says.
Raupach says earlier interglacial periods, excluded from their study, saw much greater variability -100 ppm of CO2 and 5°C - and a much higher rate of amplification.
Raupach says an interesting by-product of the study is that it shows that the much-discussed Medieval Warm Period was not as warm as the current period."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/01/28/2802646.htm

Ian Wishart

I was quoting ScienceDaily rather than Reuters. The SD report shows how recent estimates have concentrated on the 40 ppmv level, whereas the empirical tests (real world data) showed a range between 1.7 (more than 20 times lower) and 21 ppmv, with a median of 7.7 - nowhere near the 40.

It's not saying there's no feedback, it's saying the feedback is well below the extreme levels pitched by Chicken Little and co.

CM

I hope they are right. But there is plenty in what I have quoted to mean this isn't necessarily good news. For a start, they studied a period of relatively stable climate, when temperatures varied by only about 0.3°C.

So that's the end of deniers claiming no amplification?

Louie D

No way CM just the end of "evil deniers" having to claim over amplification.
The more this whole issue is looked at the more holes that keep turning up.
soon the world will reach a point where corbon no longer forces warming ,and temps might still rise.
what then?.

Andrew W

Just another example of Deniers leaping on a study they don't themselves study in the expectation that finally there's proof that all those IPCC scientists are wrong.

Denialism, not scepticism.

Truthseeker

It's funny how people are so quick to judge "deniers". Skeptics would be a better word. Besides who just believes something blindly that Al Gore or the TV told them. I feel sorry for you for not scrutinizing the facts and deciding for yourself. Science needs to be checked and checked again and again to prove a theory. You can't just say "I proved it, the debate is over!" Get real and quit stumbling through life like a docile child.

Truthseeker

I forgot to mention, no one denies that the climate is changing. That's a natural cycle of the Earth. People are just questioning whether or not this change is caused by human activity. Because if you look at the big picture this global warming scare is just a ploy to get people to pay taxes for anything they do that requires energy. Al Gore wants to sell you carbon credits and become even richer off of you saps who will believe his carefully crafted lies. Need I remind you that Al Gore claimed to invent the internet in the past? How do we know that humans cause global warming? How do we know it isn't caused by solar activity, like solar flares? You know why they picked Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as the scary monster? Because it's part of the life cycle. Humans and animals breathe out CO2 and plants absorb CO2, basic chemistry/biology. This global warming scare is an attack on life. Come on people... Be people and not sheeple.

CM

>>>It's funny how people are so quick to judge "deniers". Skeptics would be a better word.<<<

People need to know what they're talking about AND demonstrate objectivity before they can earn tag of skeptic. Based on what I've seen on the internets I would guess there are 1000 deniers for every skeptic.

>>>Besides who just believes something blindly that Al Gore or the TV told them.<<<

Morons. How is that relevant?

>>>I feel sorry for you for not scrutinizing the facts and deciding for yourself.<<<

Ditto.

>>>Science needs to be checked and checked again and again to prove a theory.<<<

Indeed. Which is what has been happening. Science related to climate has been scrutinised and checked more than any other area of science that has ever existed. More detail and evidence is available to the public than in any other area of science ever.

>>>You can't just say "I proved it, the debate is over!" <<<

You should read all the clear uncertainties tagged in the IPCC reports. And all the published papers. Instead of just making stuff up.

>>>Get real and quit stumbling through life like a docile child.<<<

Quite.

CM

>>>I forgot to mention, no one denies that the climate is changing. That's a natural cycle of the Earth.<<<

You're actually Ian 'it's the height of rudeness!' Plimer aren't you?

>>>People are just questioning whether or not this change is caused by human activity. Because if you look at the big picture this global warming scare is just a ploy to get people to pay taxes for anything they do that requires energy. Al Gore wants to sell you carbon credits and become even richer off of you saps who will believe his carefully crafted lies. Need I remind you that Al Gore claimed to invent the internet in the past? How do we know that humans cause global warming? How do we know it isn't caused by solar activity, like solar flares? You know why they picked Carbon Dioxide (CO2) as the scary monster? Because it's part of the life cycle. Humans and animals breathe out CO2 and plants absorb CO2, basic chemistry/biology. This global warming scare is an attack on life. Come on people... Be people and not sheeple.<<<

You should write for The Onion. Or http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/
Maybe you already do?

"However what makes me deeply suspicious is the complete lack of correspondence with Al Gore in these released emails. Where are all the emails showing Al Gore's involvement? Even more bizarrely there is no plotting and planning on how to raise taxes. I don't see any mention of the socialist new world order that these scientists are trying to bring about. Not once do they talk about how to best achieve wealth redistribution or world government.

So I have to conclude this this email release is a big con. It has all the hallmarks of a deliberate leak to make these scientists look better and to try and silence skeptics who question their motives. If we are to believe the emails, the scientists don't actually think their work is in error! But we know they must realize it's all a big con, so how can these emails possibly be true?"

http://denialdepot.blogspot.com/2009/11/nasas-fakes-email-leak.html

Brilliant. One of yours?

generic viagra

Recent scientific research has shown that the phenomenon of Magnetic reconnection is responsible for solar flares. Magnetic reconnection is the name given to the rearrangement of magnetic lines of force when two oppositely directed magnetic fields are brought together. This rearrangement is accompanied with a sudden release of energy stored in the original oppositely directed fields.

The comments to this entry are closed.